The Izapa Kingdom's Capital: Formative Period Settlement Patterns, Population, and Dating Low-Relief Stelae

Abstract

This article presents new settlement survey data from the Izapa center of southern Mesoamerica, a site long known for its corpus of low-relief stelae. These data, which track the changing distribution of population from 1000 BC–AD 100, indicate that the city's population peaked at 5,725 inhabitants. Izapa was the capital of a regional kingdom with more than 40 lower-order monumental centers and a territory that covered at least 450 sq. km. Recent AMS dates confirm the apogee of the kingdom at 300–100 BC, and volcanological reconstruction suggests that a Tacaná volcano eruption corresponds with archaeological evidence of political and demographic disruptions to the kingdom. Patterns at Izapa are contextualized in terms of Inomata and colleagues’ (2014) call for redating Kaminaljuyu, placing the erection of stelae there to after 100 BC, as well as Love's (2018) and Mendelsohn's (2018) responses in this journal. Izapa was an integrated kingdom from 700–100 BC, and “Izapa-style” sculptures were a novel medium of political communication introduced after the polity had been functioning without them for centuries. If Inomata and colleagues' (2014) proposal is correct that low-relief stelae were erected only after 100 BC at other centers in southern Mesoamerica, this was centuries after the practice was established at Izapa.

Dating Izapa Monuments: Comments on Rosenswig

“…We agree with Rosenswig's (2019) argument that the Guillén phase at Izapa dates to circa 300–100 BC. We question, however, both the assumption that all bas-relief monuments at the site date to this time period and the conclusion that there was a centuries-long gap between bas-relief sculptural production at Izapa and that at nearby centers.…”

“…The article does not review the archaeological contexts of the bas-relief sculptures, simply stating, “Izapa's low-relief sculptures were erected in association with Guillén-phase ceramics that date them” (2019:102). Yet, according to Norman (1976:3), “Few of the Izapa monuments were excavated in direct association with datable Preclassic remains (Lowe, Lee, and Martínez 1976), but the discovery of the Izapan-style Stelae 10 and 11 at Kaminaljuyu below a floor of Miraflores-Arenal date fixes the bulk of Izapa monuments in the same or approximate period.” In other words, the NWAF dated the Izapa monuments through the archaeological context of sculptures at Kaminaljuyu with which they share stylistic features.…”

“…Finally, we wish to respond to the allegation in the supplemental material of the article that the inclusion of ceramic phases in the Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates by Inomata and colleagues (2014) conceals “professional judgments in the guise of statistical objectivity.” The primary goal of that analysis was to date ceramic phases, so the incorporation of ceramic phases was essential. More importantly, literature on Bayesian analysis expressly states that this method incorporates researchers’ subjective judgments regarding archaeological information.…”

Refining Kaminaljuyu Chronology: New Radiocarbon Dates, Bayesian Analysis, and Ceramics Studies

“…Critical to this discussion is the dating of Maya-style bas-relief monuments at Izapa. John Clark and Ajax Moreno (2018) and Rosenswig (2019) recently defended the traditional placement of these sculptures between 300 and 100 BC. Inomata and Henderson (2016, 2019) suggest instead that many of the Izapa monuments may have been carved between 300 and 100 BC, but that some may date to around 100 BC or later.…”

“…Michael Love (2018) and Robert Rosenswig (2019) criticize Inomata and colleagues’ incorporation of ceramic data in Bayesian models. Nonetheless, the use of relative chronologies based on artifact typologies is considered to be a valid and effective approach by scholars specializing in Bayesian analysis (Buck et al 1996:217–232).…”